Dick Fischer wrote:
> George Murphy wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, Paul probably did think of Adam as an historical figure.
>> The writer of Genesis 1
>> pictured a flat earth with a solid dome of sky & waters above the
>> heavens. & the point is ... ?
>
>
> After the flood, kingship was restored at Kish, a number of kings
> reigned there until "Kish was smitten with weapons," and kingship was
> transferred to Enoch, spelled by the translator "E-Anna(k)." Enoch in
> time became Erech either because the small town was absorbed by the
> rising city or for some other reason - maybe just the evolution of
> place names. If Genesis correctly reported that the city of Enoch was
> founded by Cain, that is only one man removed from Adam himself.
>
> What was known about cosmology 3500 years ago may differ from what we
> know today, but what we earn in the future about cosmology may change
> what we currently believe. Science marches on, people and places and
> geographical landmarks endure. The writer of Genesis named rivers and
> cities we can identify. That lends credibility. Genesis does not
> begin: "Once upon a time in a land far, far away ..."
>
> My point is there exists too much extra-biblical information that
> doesn't prove the existence of Adam conclusively, but certainly
> suggests it. Why were those pyramids carved in Egypt that names
> "Adam" (Atum) and "Seth," hundreds of years before Moses or even
> Abraham was born? What would motivate them to make it up?
>
> Plus, if we assign Adam to fictional status, what about Noah or
> Abraham? Phasing in the historical characters is an impossible task.
> Fictional fathers don't have flesh and blood sons.
I see no point in continuing this thread since Dick apparently
has no interest in responding to my arguments.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 15:13:13 EST